…and this is a 
The heritage of Abraham
Category: Kooks
Posted on: October 4, 2008 12:27 PM, by PZ Myers
How about those modesty police?
In Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, where the rule of law sometimes takes a back seat to the rule of God, zealots are on a campaign to stamp out behavior they consider unchaste. They hurl stones at women for such "sins" as wearing a red blouse, and attack stores selling devices that can access the Internet.
In recent weeks, self-styled "modesty patrols" have been accused of breaking into the apartment of a Jerusalem woman and beating her for allegedly consorting with men. They have torched a store that sells MP4 players, fearing devout Jews would use them to download pornography.
"These breaches of purity and modesty endanger our community," said 38-year-old Elchanan Blau, defending the bearded, black-robed zealots. "If it takes fire to get them to stop, then so be it."
And the significant difference between Judaism and Islam is…? I guess it's merely a matter of degree: a Muslim cleric wants women to wear clothing that covers up all but one and only one eye, while the Jewish fundamentalists, I presume, still allow women to use both eyes. So far.
Hey, I have a suggestion for all those fearful people who want to punish women for being so darn tempting. Instead of targeting women, let's have all orthodox, fundamentalist men fitted with devices that measure penis enlargement, and that set off blinking lights and whistles mounted on the gentleman's hats when significant arousal is detected. Then the clerics and rabbis and orthodox mobs can patrol the streets and stone anyone with a flashing hat — one way or another, the visible responses to perfectly ordinary human forms will disappear, the clerics will be able to claim victory over temptation, and they can stop abusing innocent women.
I'm sure there's a clever dick somewhere who can come up with such a device.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Lago | October 4, 2008 12:31 PM
The above actions are the same reasons I thought it was OK to bomb Afghanistan.
Bomb Israel? Maybe?
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 4, 2008 12:31 PM
Maybe we can even call the widget the "Clever Dick".
Posted by: Ken Clark | October 4, 2008 12:33 PM
No need for bells and whistles, a nice high voltage electric shock should do the trick.
Posted by: Lago | October 4, 2008 12:33 PM
Or maybe we could call the widget, "The Homosexual selector agent?"
Posted by: Max Fagin | October 4, 2008 12:36 PM
I'm quite convinced that Judaism is the least violent of the three Abrahamic religions, but only because it never got a real chance at the power required to commit something like the crusades.
Posted by: pcarini | October 4, 2008 12:38 PM
The hats on these "modesty patrol" members would overload whenever they beat someone for immodesty.
Posted by: Dan Oberste | October 4, 2008 12:39 PM
I'm thinking an arousal detection device that attaches to a guillotine apparatus similar in size to a cigar cutter. For orthodox Jewish men that should be a more than adequate size.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 4, 2008 12:39 PM
""In Israel's ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, where the rule of law sometimes takes a back seat to the rule of God, zealots are on a campaign to stamp out behavior they consider unchaste. They hurl stones at women for such "sins" as wearing a red blouse, and attack stores selling devices that can access the Internet. ""
When I lived in Jerusalem back in the 60's (as a child) our UN jeep was pummeled by the orthodox jews everytime we drove through their neighborhood. It had to do with the way Mum was dressed, and the fact that they knew we were heading to the swimming pool.
My parents actually lost their southern Baptist upbringing living among these nutjobbers and the Islam is all crowd.
And thank god for that!
Posted by: Abbie | October 4, 2008 12:42 PM
The above actions are the same reasons I thought it was OK to bomb Afghanistan.
Bomb Israel? Maybe?
How american of you.
Posted by: Susan | October 4, 2008 12:47 PM
I love Twisty's phrase, "Most women have no idea how much men hate them." I keep thinking the women subjected to this sort of crap will finally have had enough, rise up en mass and just refuse/leave/castrate all the men they know some night. They must be so afraid.
I like your idea for an alternative morality delivery methodology, btw. I think it gets to the true root of the problem.
Posted by: Jadehawk | October 4, 2008 12:47 PM
Bomb Israel? but doncha know that we're BFF with Israel and cannot ever secondguess what they do? pffft. you're sooo unpatriotic!![/channeling Palin]
seriously, the hypocrisy is mind-numbing... i guess as long as the crazies are on our side, it's ok? *sigh*
Posted by: pcarini | October 4, 2008 12:47 PM
There was this whole event with planes and skyscrapers... absolute fucking mess. You might want to look it up, since you've obviously been living under a rock for the past seven years.
Posted by: Kathy | October 4, 2008 12:47 PM
Finally! I've alwsys despised the argument that says, "Women are too tempting, therefore they must cover up." I answer, if you can't handle it, then stop LOOKING.
Why does it become MY responsibility as a woman to protect you from evil? It should be YOUR responsibility as a good (fill in the blank) to be able to tread that straight and narrow path.
I like your solution , PZ.
Posted by: pcarini | October 4, 2008 12:52 PM
Abbie @ #9
How american of you.
Hey, don't conflate me and that asshole because of our nationality. I'll return the favor by not calling everyone from your country a bunch of unthinking, overgeneralizing, condescending twats.
Posted by: Richard Harris | October 4, 2008 12:53 PM
It seems to me that, just as a percentage of the population are naturally prone to criminality, influenced by socio-economic circumstances, another percentage are naturally prone to extreme religiosity, influenced by socio-educational circumstances.
Both groups mostly comprise males. Wouldn't it be great if we could identify the genes responsible, and abort the fetuses carrying the aberrant mutations. It would make the world a much nicer place.
Posted by: Mark Borok | October 4, 2008 12:53 PM
And these are the same people who want to be (and are) exempt from military service.
They won't fight their country's enemies, but they'll beat up defenseless women and other fellow Jews. And then they move into settlements in the occupied territories and expect the secular Israeli soldiers to protect their wretched hides.
The above actions are the same reasons I thought it was OK to bomb Afghanistan.
Bomb Israel? Maybe?
Because the only thing better than being beaten up by a religious zealot is being blown up by a bomb. Good thinking, there.
Posted by: pcarini | October 4, 2008 12:54 PM
Ack, blockquote failure. The "How american of you." in my #14 is from Abbie.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 4, 2008 12:55 PM
You know, don't you, that Afghanistan did not blow up a couple of towers in NY?
Posted by: Lago | October 4, 2008 12:59 PM
Um, it was a joke people. You know, based on short-minded foreign policy thinking, aka the last 8 years?
The fact that I need to explain that?
Priceless...
Posted by: Thinker | October 4, 2008 12:59 PM
Make sure it has a real loud siren, and call it the Dicktaphone (TM)!
OTOH, it could become embarassing when meeting up for a date with your Trophy Wife (or whatever significant other you happen to prefer) ...
Posted by: Michael | October 4, 2008 12:59 PM
PZ, you are quite right that this behavior is cowardly. I think the only difference between Judaism and Islam is that Jews have no interest in converting others to their faith. They will only harass the weak of their own community. And they will violently chase out intruders.
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp | October 4, 2008 1:02 PM
And this isn't terrorism... how?
Posted by: Abbie | October 4, 2008 1:04 PM
Hey, don't conflate me and that asshole because of our nationality. I'll return the favor by not calling everyone from your country a bunch of unthinking, overgeneralizing, condescending twats.
Sorry, I should have mentioned I'm a vermonter. I'm just not feeling very charitable towards the other 49 states right now.
You know, don't you, that Afghanistan did not blow up a couple of towers in NY?
Wasn't it the Iranians? Maybe the palestinians? Or Hezbollah? I forget! Someone brown-who-doesn't-sell-us-oil did it, that's all I know.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 4, 2008 1:06 PM
I wish I could remember the title of one of Tom Sharpe's early novels in which the (apartheid-era) South African police initiate a program to stop patrol officers from unseemly "fraternization" with the local ladies. There is an outrageous scene in which a few hundred policemen are tied to chairs and made to watch interracial porn movies - all plugged into plesmographs which trigger high-voltage shocks at the first signal of penile turgidity: a steady chorus of yelping ensues.
Sharpe's exile from that nation followed shortly thereafter.
Posted by: PlainJane | October 4, 2008 1:08 PM
I LOVE you solution to the overtly misogynistic actions/beliefs of so many religions. It is time for MEN to take resposibility for their own thoughts and actions and not blame women.
Another solution might be to put boys into chastity belts and their mothers can pass the keys on to their wives when they marry.
Posted by: Canuck | October 4, 2008 1:08 PM
That kind of penile response device would be rather easy to produce. There's nothing new required in the realm of technology. All of the kit exists to do it. Just needs to be built. Maybe a good project for one of my senior engineering students.
But in the meantime, the women can just get a can of that "Priest Off" stuff. It seems to be rather effective.
Posted by: The Ridger | October 4, 2008 1:08 PM
But surely truly devout Jews would never use their MP4 players for porn. Can't they be trusted?
Posted by: BG | October 4, 2008 1:09 PM
They have these suggested devices now (almost). It is not uncommon in judicial use for evaluations.
A band is placed around the penis and the person is shown images and they are judged based on the arousal they experience.
Quote:
"Penile plethysmography is a test utilized to make subjective determinations about an individual's psychological condition with regard to certain sexual disorders and deviant behavior in the male."
http://forensic-evidence.com/site/Behv_Evid/BeE00005_2.html
I find it frightening.
Posted by: Tommykey | October 4, 2008 1:12 PM
Orthodox Judaism is a mental disorder.
Posted by: Lau | October 4, 2008 1:13 PM
Even among the most religious Jews, the rule to cover up is only (I know, only!) collarbone, elbows, ankles. And hair if you're married.
Not that I'm defending Orthodoxy - I have some serious personal gripes with it - but I think it is actually more woman-friendly than a lot of religions. The ketubah (marriage document) actually protects women in case of divorce.
But those particular assholes in Israel deserve a serious beatdown. Ironically, they probably rely on their own wives to support the household while they stay home and "study".
Posted by: pcarini | October 4, 2008 1:13 PM
I hope I'm guilty of missing sarcasm here.
You know, don't you, that the ruling party of Afghanistan was harboring the organization behind the attacks? This according to our best intelligence at the time, which is beyond my ability to confirm or deny.
There simply isn't any comparison between the decision for military action in Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/11 and "Jews are repressive, let's bomb Israel". Yes, I know it was said as a hyperbole, but it just doesn't fit.
I don't, however, agree with our policy of replacing governments in that region, or propping up others. While we should have "bombed Afghanistan", it should have been to eliminate the al-Qaeda presence there, not to install our own puppet.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | October 4, 2008 1:14 PM
They hurl stones at women for such "sins" as wearing a red blouse...
Hmm. Would it be safe for a woman to wear red on a Sabbath, or do these guys grant themselves an exemption from The Rules for their holy work?
Posted by: E.V. | October 4, 2008 1:17 PM
PlainJane:
Perhaps you've never heard of Phyllis Schlafly and others of her ilk.
Posted by: Shane | October 4, 2008 1:22 PM
"Electric Alarum" (A: cuff for penis; B: leads to alarm box).
Seems like the 19th century British beat you to it.
Wages of Sin by Peter Lewis Allen:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=JKUJ58GkDKQC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&source=web&ots=0qUFM9ZOHv&sig=w4iLmtEMMPMuEFJ2_0VabEYXciU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result
Posted by: moo | October 4, 2008 1:27 PM
The percentage of crazed militant fanatics in the affected regions of the world.
Posted by: pcarini | October 4, 2008 1:28 PM
Lago @ #19: These last eight years have, unfortunately, turned that statement to something almost believable. I didn't find it remarkable at first, but Abbie's #9 set me off a bit. Too often on this forum and elsewhere I see an "all americans are ___" statement made, as though we unanimously voted the current leadership in.
Abbie @ 23
Sorry, I should have mentioned I'm a vermonter. I'm just not feeling very charitable towards the other 49 states right now.
Unfortunately, my state is the reddest of the red ;( My vote hasn't been worth counting since I've been able to vote.
Posted by: Sastra | October 4, 2008 1:30 PM
Self-restraint? How humanist.
If men do not have urges which are uncontrollable, then they would not need supernatural powers and commandments to resist them. Therefore, the pious have to convince themselves that they're out of control without constant devotion, sacrifice, and prayer. They're sick and riddled with the sin of the world, and require remedies which come from a higher dimension -- which have the 'right' to control this one.
Religion cuts you, then sells you a band-aid.
Posted by: Psycho Atheist | October 4, 2008 1:30 PM
Pierce R. Butler wrote
I wish I could remember the title of one of Tom Sharpe's early novels in which the (apartheid-era) South African police initiate a program to stop patrol officers from unseemly "fraternization" with the local ladies.
-------------------------------------------------------
Indecent Exposure?
Posted by: Jadehawk | October 4, 2008 1:31 PM
um... that doesn't even make sense. you can't bomb an organization out of a place, unless you're suggesting we should have just carpet-bombed the entire place to the point of complete unlivability?
sorry, but the U.S. attitude of "just fight the enemy, then go home" was what got the Taliban into place to begin with. no, the real fuckup was: one, the new completely pointless war in Iraq; two, the conflict of interest between The War on Terror(TM) and The War on Drugs(TM); three, severe underfunding for Nationbuilding organizations (though this one I can also blame on Europe. they totally missed an opportunity to show how international policy and nation reconstruction should be done. total FAIL)
Posted by: E.V. | October 4, 2008 1:31 PM
Pcarini: They belonged to the group Al Quaeda, but most were Saudis.
It would be the equivalent of saying that the US is to blame for any violence in foreign countries initialized by, for the sake of argument, KKK or Los Angeles based Neo Nazi members.
Posted by: Muffin | October 4, 2008 1:32 PM
There's many differences between judaism and islam, actually, but what matters more is what they have in common: they're both opium for the people at best and dangerous cults (as evidenced here) at worst.
Posted by: E.V. | October 4, 2008 1:35 PM
A fellow Texan?Posted by: Jadehawk | October 4, 2008 1:36 PM
I bet my state is redder than yours :-p (not really...at least the congressmen and such are often dems)Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 4, 2008 1:37 PM
I wish I could remember the title of one of Tom Sharpe's early novels in which the (apartheid-era) South African police initiate a program to stop patrol officers from unseemly "fraternization" with the local ladies. - Pierce R. Butler
"Indecent Exposure". The result (unrealistic, but this is OTT satire) is to turn all the policemen gay. The novel also includes a "communist cell" made up entirely of members of the secret police, who feed ostriches with condoms full of explosive, then let them loose. It's a sequel to "Riotous Assembly", which I found even funnier. Tom Sharpe's best, IMO - his kind of satire needs a really insane target such as apartheid South Africa provided.
Posted by: Iddo | October 4, 2008 1:45 PM
Another difference between Islam and Judaism is the order of magnitude of both the respective communities and the restrictions on them. It is obvious that there are more Muslims than Jews, and if a religious Haredi moron would harm a woman for wearing cloths he finds offensive, he will be prosecuted, judged and punished. His actions are not and will not be supported by the Israeli administration or law, as both are mostly secular.
In short, despite me being biased (I'm Israeli), I still think that if I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I'd go for Judaism.
Posted by: Dahan | October 4, 2008 1:46 PM
PZ's solution is expensive and there could be many ways around it. If baby boys were just blinded at birth, the women in these countries could dress however they wished to without being so darned tempting.
Posted by: ThirtyFiveUp | October 4, 2008 1:50 PM
Rich Lowry at the National Review has a confession.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDYzMGFiNjQ0MWRjNmI0ZTlkYjgwZTExMjA3MWNiZTk=
Posted by: Leo Tarvi | October 4, 2008 1:53 PM
I find the idea of such "modesty patrols" particularly offensive because it suggests that I am some sort of ravening beast, barely held in check by the constant attention of the carefully dressed women handlers whose primary job, it seems, is to keep monsters like me under control.
That people call this "civilization" makes me angry. Surprisingly, I do not use this rage as license to kill and rampage, because, you see, I am NOT enslaved to my instincts like an animal.
The idea that men are creatures of uncontrolled lust, and that women are responsible for it, is an insult to all humanity.
That's the philosophical outrage, of course. The inevitable violence produces anger of a much more banal sort.
Posted by: Steven Carr | October 4, 2008 1:58 PM
'"These breaches of purity and modesty endanger our community," said 38-year-old Elchanan Blau, defending the bearded, black-robed zealots.'''
Do you know what these people believe their god will do to them if these 'breaches of purity and modesty' continue?
No wonder they feel that these things cannot be allowed to continue, when their god will kill everybody who lives in a community which allows such things.
Posted by: Leo Tarvi | October 4, 2008 1:59 PM
As for the internet devices, could the porn thing be a cover? I wonder if maybe the real danger is the information. I imagine few things can create doubt as swiftly and powerfully as the weird and varied panorama of ideas on the web.
Posted by: Katharine | October 4, 2008 2:08 PM
Subscribe a bunch of those assholes to porn lists.
Posted by: alicia-logic | October 4, 2008 2:09 PM
Many of them internalize it and side with the enforcers. Behold the Ann Coulters, Sarah Palins and other Judas goats of the world.
Oh--and perhaps those getting on their high horses about stone throwing will consider, for a moment, how this behavior is on a continuum with cat-calling, an activity which is commonly defended as "appreciation" but actually serves to intimidate females who dare to enter the public sphere without the protection of male.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 4, 2008 2:13 PM
Posted by: Dahan | October 4, 2008
PZ's solution is expensive and there could be many ways around it. If baby boys were just blinded at birth, the women in these countries could dress however they wished to without being so darned tempting.
Dahan, while your solution would work, it is needlessly cruel. Also it is wasteful, you are limiting what the male workforce would be able to do. Also, if men are such uncontrollable beasts, would not the smells and voices bring about temptations.
I would suggest that menfolks can only move through underground tubes that only men could use. That way they can move between work and home. This ensures that menfolk can still be the bread winners and do not come in contact with women who are not their wives or relatives. No pain, no loses of abilities and the men can work all sorts of jobs. And womenfolk can dress as we please.
Posted by: pcarini | October 4, 2008 2:17 PM
Jadehawk @ #39
I never suggested anything even remotely like that. I placed quotes around "bombed Afghanistan" to try to point out what an absurd oversimplification that is of the military operation that's going on over there, in response to Lago's (now admitted to be sarcastic) #1.
I'm not a fan of nation-building in general, but I'm a bit torn in the case of Afghanistan. If we destroy the political structure of a country than we have to obligation to make sure it has a working government when we leave, likewise with any of the infrastructure necessary for civilization. Of course we shouldn't go around destroying other nations' leadership as often as we have been in the past few years. The Taliban, being hosts and sponsors of al-Qaeda, probably couldn't remain while our aim was to eliminate al-Qaeda. The democracy we set up there, and our man at the top, probably can't survive without our continued presence there. How long will we have to prop yet another government in that region up, then?
E.V. @ #40
If the US funded, armed, and trained the KKK and then sent them out to cause havoc elsewhere, that would be a valid comparison.
Posted by: E.V. | October 4, 2008 2:18 PM
What makes you think they don't have their very own, very private stash? The object of their little game is to enforce strict morality for everyone else but themselves. They're so twisted though, that sexual aversion and denial gets them off. Talk about perversion.Posted by: Jadehawk | October 4, 2008 2:22 PM
see now, that makes a lot more sense. the thing is though that a properly re-built nation can become (mostly) independently functionable relatively quickly (relative to the time the U.S. is already stuck in Afghanistan and will remain stuck there and in Iraq), but not if it's a half-assed effort.
I am quite grateful that WWII wasn't followed by what qualifies as Nationbuilding these days :-/ (I'm from Germany)
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 4, 2008 2:30 PM
On second thought, maybe the ultra-Orthodox Jews and that Muslim cleric are on to something. Rich Lowry of The National Review Online cannot control himself.
If Palin was wearing an outfit that only allowed one eye to be seen, poor little Rich Lowry never would have been able to tell that Palin winked at him.
Posted by: pcarini | October 4, 2008 2:32 PM
I should have guessed I couldn't just claim that title without some competition. In the past several presidential elections, Utah's popular vote has been either the most or second most republican in the nation. (my source) 1992 was the odd year out, because we loves us a crazy independent, otherwise this trend goes back until at least '76.
The current aggregation of polls at pollster.com has us more republican, by a hair's breadth, than OK for the top spot. A poll by KSL news here in SLC has 48-20 that Palin won the VeeP debate.
Posted by: Jadehawk | October 4, 2008 2:32 PM
"It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America."
I want whatever this guy is smoking.
Posted by: raven | October 4, 2008 2:38 PM
When I visited Israel in the 90's, the ultra orthodox weren't too popular with most.
1. They wouldn't serve in the military.
2. They wouldn't work very much. I'm vague on how they got out of that one, but a lot seemed to be on state support i.e. welfare. Might be something about studying to be a rabbi or being a rabbi or something or having a zillion kids they couldn't feed.
3. They were always protesting about something. It seemed to be anything to do with road building or construction because their might be ancient graves there, selling pork, not being immobile on the sabbath, and so on.
Posted by: jadehawk | October 4, 2008 2:38 PM
Utah?!
ok, you win. Even North Dakota (me) and Texas (E.V.) can't compete there. (and yes, i already knew that, but in comparison to my previous homes, this is deep red hell)
Posted by: Bad Albert | October 4, 2008 2:42 PM
"A Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia has called on women to wear a full veil, or niqab, that reveals only one eye."
Am I the only one who thinks this is even more insane than Crackergate? Here's an idea: If these shit-for-brains idiots don't like the way women look, why don't they poke each others eyes out? For a fee, I'll gladly do it for them. What a bunch of fucking morons.
Posted by: pcarini | October 4, 2008 2:44 PM
I'm afraid I can't argue with that characterization of my home-state, sir. *pours self another drink*To add to the excitement -- this weekend is the big semi-annual Mormon conference/indoctrination thingy, and it's snarling up traffic here something fierce. Buncha damn Idaho drivers that aren't used to being off the farm...
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 4, 2008 2:46 PM
A device that can be easily worked around would be a plus, actually.
Imagine a world where the devout can wear a prominent system of flashers to alert everyone when they're thinking impure thoughts, but which they can surreptitiously circumvent by, say, not hooking it up to their genitals. Now, when a beautiful naked woman sashays into their field of view, she isn't a challenge to their faith, but an affirmation -- the mute darkness of their hats becomes a testimony to their piety. Instead of stoning women to flaunt the strength of their beliefs, they'll be encouraging them to strut their stuff!
Posted by: Jadehawk | October 4, 2008 2:49 PM
it's ma'am, and I was talking about ND in comparison to CA, WA, and Germany (oh and socialist Poland, which was a different kind of red hell), where I lived before
Utah would then be deeper, redder, hellisher, heheh
Posted by: Don | October 4, 2008 2:59 PM
These might help.
http://sexology.narod.ru/images/anti-masturbation-devices.gif
Posted by: pcarini | October 4, 2008 3:01 PM
My apologies, Jadehawk, ma'am it is then. (That's much less embarrassing online than in person ;)
Also I'm liking where PZ's taking this in #64. Can we call this The Emperor's Cockring? "Of course he's wearing it, he just doesn't find naked women sexy" ... never mind, I guess that wouldn't work all that well.
Posted by: Upstate | October 4, 2008 3:06 PM
Admittedly the Abrahamic religions as instructed by Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah (its all in the bible folks, which was dictated by God to Moses) have brought us 3000 years of female-bashing, metaphorically and literally, but that does not justify a reversal to male-bashing and, in itself, to country bombing.
Nature gave women sublimely beautiful bodies for the purpose of arousing males. Our survival liteally depends on this interaction. Anyone who can't handle this because they were taught that females exist ONLY for reproduction at the discretion of patriarchal males, or that males exist ONLY to be socially and politically regulated automata serving women's reproductive strategy is by definition sexist and and anti-nature.
Let's all grow up and accept sex for the wonderful thing that it is, a gift to both sexes, to be enjoyed by both. And enough with the smashing planes into buildings and the bombing.
Shalom, Salaam, Peace.
Posted by: Dianne | October 4, 2008 3:10 PM
What always gets me about these religious types is how weak and lacking in self control they seem to be. In mostly atheist Germany they have FKK (nude) beaches. People are responsible for controlling themselves, an erection is a serious faux pas, and anyone who engages in excessive ogling is invited to jump into the (cold!) ocean until they can control themselves again. No fuss, no muss, no orgies on the beach (those are restricted to different, private beaches). In contrast, judeo-christio-islamic fundies apparently can't so much as look at a woman's ankle without losing their cool. What a bunch of wimps. No wonder they're losing the cultural war.
Posted by: Dee | October 4, 2008 3:10 PM
pcarini:
I knew right away you were talking about Utah. Like you, my vote hasn't counted since I started voting - with the exception of the local judge I helped vote out of office in the last election (and boy, was that a pleasure).
Fellow Utahn
Posted by: Dianne | October 4, 2008 3:16 PM
Nature gave women sublimely beautiful bodies for the purpose of arousing males.
Nah. It's just that the men who were aroused by healthy, fertile women shared their genes with those women, had lots of babies who survived, and defined "beautiful" for the next generation.
Posted by: Interrobang | October 4, 2008 3:18 PM
Nature gave women sublimely beautiful bodies for the purpose of arousing males.
Actually, I think it's more like "Males who evolved to think that females have sublimely beautiful bodies -- and females who think that males have sublimely beautiful bodies -- tend to have greater reproductive success than others." Really, none of us actually are sublimely beautiful; that's your body chemistry playing tricks on you. Damn I love being immune to certain biological imperatives; it makes having a sense of perspective dead easy.
Posted by: E.V. | October 4, 2008 3:19 PM
It's not that they object to the way women look, it's that they don't want anyone else to look lustfully or covetously at their personal property (wives and daughters). And we all know that if a woman exposes any flesh she's just begging for sex.;-)Posted by: penn | October 4, 2008 3:20 PM
I always like passively designed devices. You could make a device that fits comfortable over their flaccid penis, but is much to small for their erect penis. Then put sharp prongs all around the interior. Any aroused man would quickly learn to stop looking at the tempting ladies.
Posted by: pcarini | October 4, 2008 3:20 PM
Careful with that, you might summon Pete Rook!
Posted by: Corydoras | October 4, 2008 3:20 PM
@ #24
Riotous Assembly and Indecent Exposure
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | October 4, 2008 3:24 PM
You have to promise not to laugh
Although my logic's iffy;
I hooked up a plethysmograph
To show I've got a stiffy.
So if some woman's leg I see
And "beep-beep!" goes my cock,
I do what scripture asks of me
And hit her with a rock.
If just a bit of ankle shows
But I still get a boner,
I'm justified, my Rabbi knows,
To go ahead and stone her
The scriptures say it's not my fault
Some temptress shows some skin
It's simple justice, not assault,
To stone her for her sin.
We'll stone the sluts, on God's behalf
Till all temptation's gone...
But... wearing this plethysmograph?
It kinda turns me on...
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/10/modern-technology-meets-bronze-age.html
Posted by: Jared | October 4, 2008 3:27 PM
Amazing as always, Cuttlefish.
But perhaps somehow squeezing in something about "one eye"
Posted by: pcarini | October 4, 2008 3:27 PM
Cuttlefish, that was absolutely spectacular! Must be a hoot coming up with rhymes for stiffy, cock, and boner.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | October 4, 2008 3:35 PM
Jared @#78
The clerics devoutly may try
To make sure that our morals are high
But it's no great surprise
That I still get a rise
When I gaze on her lovely brown eye...
Posted by: Yair | October 4, 2008 3:44 PM
As an Israeli (atheist), I'd like to explain that the Ultra Orthodox people that are being described here [not Orthodox, which are normally-dressed people with a Kipa; the Ultra-Orthodox are the black-wearing people] are very much a cult and a closed society. They prevent contact with the outside world, including television, MP4 players, Internet, and so on. They teach their children in secluded, sectarian schools where they are brainwashed with anti-evolution, literalistic, and I dare say racist interpretation of Judaism. And more. There are many bus-lines which are segregated (women sitting at the back of the bus), segregated beaches, and so on. Women are accorded some rights in Jewish courts, but not as many rights and certainly not equal rights to men. The men hardly work, relying on the women's labor and welfare; they stay in the Yeshiva instead of going to the army or work. It's a very poor, backwards society. And they make up about 8% of the adult Jewish population.
Jewish fundamentalism isn't any nicer than Muslim or Christian one. And Jewish fundamentalists are far, far more common in Israel than you'd probably imagine. As an example - the science curriculum in Israel does not include Evolution as an obligatory subject, so a child could very well finish (secular) high-school without ever learning about it; this is because of the large support for creationism is even relatively moderate Jewish circles. Israel in polls has more secular people than the US, but the influence of fundamentalist and religious thinking on its policies is even higher than it is in the US.
Posted by: Lau | October 4, 2008 3:55 PM
Yair - Obviously this is a subject for considerable examination, but I'm curious if you can illuminate why the ultra Orthodox have so much sway in Israel? I know a fair number of modern Orthodox here in the U.S., and they've given me the impression that is the case, but with such a low percentage, I'm puzzled as to why. I always attribute the crazy backward laws in the States to the preponderance of crazy backward thinking.
Posted by: The Chimp's Raging Id | October 4, 2008 4:00 PM
Cuttlefish, you are a genius!
And I'm loving PZ's suggestion in #64.
E.V., I think you're spot on - this "modesty" nonsense is a religiously codified way for men to control "their" women. I'm often amazed that women in these communities don't realise this, but I guess that's the power of religious indoctrination.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck, FCD | October 4, 2008 4:15 PM
So if males had come to associate mouth breathing and drooling to be good correlates with fecundity, that would be the standard for beauty.
Have I got that right? Truly all in the eye of the beholder, then.
Posted by: Spud | October 4, 2008 4:15 PM
There is such a device already - it's called a penile plethysmograph.
You don't need to know how I know this.
Posted by: Tim H | October 4, 2008 4:16 PM
I find the difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam simple to remember and describe. It is based on how each religion, when it achieves power, treats people who challenge their beliefs.
Judaism requires that they be stoned to death.
Islam cuts off their heads.
Christianity, demonstrating its superior morality and mercy, burns them at the stake.
All three would still be doing it if it wasn't for secularists.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 4, 2008 4:18 PM
Whose Fallacy is Poe's Law now called?
Sarcasm -- ur doin it rong.
Posted by: brian | October 4, 2008 4:27 PM
Alicia-logic #52 said:
Perhaps those getting on their high horses about perceived inconsistency will consider, for a moment, that commenters here are real people who are not necessarily perfect, but do not seem to be defending any part of the continuum, and most likely do not participate in cat-calling themselves.
In other words, why are you condemning the people who are writing in support of the right of women not to be stoned without any evidence that they've done anything wrong?